Accept what? That you know for sure the result would have been better had he not called the time out? No thanks. Remember the end of the Pittsburgh game last year? Or how clueless we looked on the fake spike play vs GB? I think you're the one with amnesia.
I know it's not a beauty contest but do we really need to have a head coach that looks like a rotted corpse on the sideline? I mean the guy is one of the ugliest mother****ers you'll ever see.
Low percentage? Yes. Very low percentage? No. I believe we're talking about 34.5% conversion rate league-wide with about a 6.9% turnover rate. Which means they were 5.0x more likely to win the game by calling a pass than they were to end up with a costly turnover. And how "costly" would that turnover have been? If they returned it for a score, Miami would have had the ball back with a 3 point deficit, almost 3 minutes remaining on the clock, and all 3 timeouts in their pocket. Not a terrible situation. And if Green Bay did not return the turnover for a touchdown, the defense would have a chance to make a stand, AND the coaches would have all 3 timeouts they could use to preserve enough clock for Tannehill to try and get the team into tying FG range. In other words, even the "worst case scenario" wasn't a no-win scenario. That 6.9% does not represent 6.9% chance you lose the football game. Probably more like a 4% chance. Basically a pass call was between 8 and 10x more likely to win the game as to lose the game. The cost-benefit was very much in favor of staying aggressive. The Dolphins were at their own 36 yard line. They punted and put the Packers back on their own 40 yard line. If you've been watching football long enough you know that it's not terribly difficult for an offense to move the ball from their own territory into opponent territory within a 2 minute drill setting. The defense is almost always playing back in shell coverage (NOT to be confused with a 'prevent' defense) so as not to allow the big easy strike. So really your stand as a defense is going to be made, more often than not, in your own territory. And indeed that's what happened as Miami got the Packers to a 4th & 10 after the Packers had moved the ball into Miami territory. On that basis you really do have to question a play call whose sole intention is preserving the punt. Most of the yards you "gain" as a defense from that punt will be taken back easily by the opposing offense as you sit back in shell coverage preventing the big play. On the other hand, you convert that 3rd & 9, the game is over. The percentages were not with Joe Philbin on the call. The game theory wasn't with him. He just got...queasy. Listen, it happens. I consider Andy Reid a pretty good coach and I know that if you watch him long enough he can make some terrible calls this way. At some point they all do. But Andy Reid has done a lot of other things to demonstrate his worth, despite the occasional bad game management call. Philbin has not.
How do you know? Why don't you just admit you have no idea what impact kodaking has on the outcome? Maybe kodaking is more valuable for us than 2 extra seconds is for them.
That calling the first time out was a bad decision. I have no idea if the result would be different had that decision not been made. A complete lack of situational awareness is an indictment of the coaching.
Kodaking does not even apply here. And again, you can't argue that kodaking is beneficial. But stopping the clock for them is a clear benefit. So at best, we have once again devolved the argument in support of Joe Philbin to "well we just don't know".
Ryan Tannehill's conversion rate is not 35% in that situation. And applying a league wide conversion rate to an end game situation like that isn't really fair either.
Those are all good points and we'd all like to have seen Philbin go for the jugular there. All I'm saying is that I understand why he did what he did. If you look at how GB barely made the 60 yards, factor in that Philbin was expecting them to have to go 80+ (a decent punt), its easy to see IMO.
I don't think this is the sort of team whose success is riding even remotely on whether its coach calls a pass or a run in one game, or even whether such a call is indicative of the coach's disposition. We can go 'round and 'round about whether that was the right call, and the fact still remains that this team's roster doesn't have the characteristics of those of the most competitive teams in the league.
I might agree with this if we were playing an opponent that's inferior to the Rodgers lead Packers, but there comes a time when the head coach has to take into account who`s on the other side line and call the shots accordingly. Remember when Belichick went for it on 4th and 2 from his own 28 yard line against Manning and the Colts? It didn't work in his favor but he knew who he was facing and acted accordingly.
There were excellent points throughout the whole post, but I quoted something that is the reason I just throw out all the game management stuff when discussing Philbin and whether he should have been kept. There are some really good coaches in the league who are lousy game managers, and Reid is at the top of the list. The problem with Philbin is that he doesn't have anything else to make us suspect that he's a good coach.
The only person that knows with any certainty if it was a bad decision or not is Aaron Rodgers. You should have just said " I have no idea if the result would be different had that decision not been made" and left it at that. And how can you judge his situational awareness from your couch without even being in the situation? Another poster was at the game and he said he agreed with the timeout. And he hates Philbin as much as you. You have a rule to never call a timeout when the clock is running in that situation, is that it? Sparano did it this season and it was the correct call. Maybe, like in that game, something was happening off of your TV screen that you weren't aware of. The bottom line is Philbin had much more information on the situation than you did. The guy at the game in the stands had more information than you did. Why would anybody trust your situational awareness while watching on TV over the guy on the sideline or in the stands?
No, I have a very good idea of what a defensive timeout does in that situation. There are hundreds of instances and plenty of data available. I questioned the situational awareness of Cortland Finnegan, a player of Philbin's that was unaware of the situation. Finnegan wasn't prepared, and thats a reflection of bad coaching. You don't need to be in the stands (why that would matter is beyond me) to realize that you need to tackle the receiver in bounds. Again, your support of Philbin has devolved to him being so bad that there must be information we aren't privy to. Using that logic, Cam Cameron was a good coach. And to be absolutely clear, the inside information makes Philbin look worse than his coaching does.
Lets see this wealth of information on defensive timeouts. I know Philbin is 5-1 when kodaking. And in the one instance he chose not to kodak on 4th and 10 we lost. I don't think Finnegan was unprepared, I think he simply got outplayed. Have fun with your "inside information." According to the "inside information" Philbin would be fired if we didn't make the playoffs...
Good post, I had forgotten all about that game, Welker was tackled short of the line lol. Did you agree with Belichick there? And wasnt he doing the same thing Philbin did vs GB, showing a lack of confidence in the side of the ball that he himself coaches? Or if you want to flip it around, showing confidence in the side of the ball that he trusts more? The biggest difference imo is that Belichick has had enough success to where he's not defined by those kinds of calls.
Belichick got raked through the coals for that decision. Only because they lost though, of course. He made an unorthodox move and kicked off instead of taking the ball after winning the coin toss in overtime last season, might have been the Broncos game but not sure. He wanted the wind in his favor. It worked out and they won, but had they lost you better believe they'd still be talking about it.
I find it hard to believe that Finnegan, or anyone with a half a clue, didn't know that protecting the sideline is critical in that situation. Maybe Philbin should have called a TO to go over that, but we already know what you think of that idea. If the players don't know the situation it's the coaches fault, if the coaches call TO to get things squared away its the coaches fault. Everything is the coaches fault...
Finnegan clearly tried to keep the guy in bounds. The problem is he tried to keep him in bounds and wanted to make sure he made the tackle. What people felt he should have done was simply kept the receiver from going out of bounds and forced him to go in the middle. I would think that would be completely unnatural for a defensive player, it was doable but a big ask. I give Finnegan a lot of credit for being aware enough to just try to keep the guy in bounds there. A lot wouldn't even be that smart.
He tried to pull him in bounds. If he wanted him to go out bounds he simply would have shoved him, and he wouldn't have scampered up the sideline for an extra 10 or 15 yards or whatever he got. It was a terrible looking attempt but at least he was aware enough to try to keep him in bounds.
That's a good point. Just watched it again, Finnegan seemed to be expecting a throw to the end zone pre snap, after the throw he rallied up and was in perfect position to prevent Adams from going out of bounds. Knees bent, outside technique, he was clearly protecting the side line. Taylor was closing from the inside to finish the play, Jenkins too. For some reason Finnegan froze and allows Adams to get outside of him, only he knows why. What I do know is that Adams wasn't going to score if he stayed in bounds. The game would have ended right there.
Don't forget that the Packers' players and coaches deserve some credit for what happened in that game. Again, we're talking about a 12-4 team with a first-round bye in the playoffs here, that usually wins games by 11 points when it enters the fourth quarter with a 7-point lead. I find it ironic that if the Dolphins were likewise 12-4 with a first-round bye, we'd probably be talking about the strength of the opposition and how a game against them would be expected to go either way, yet when the Dolphins are 8-8 and home for the playoffs, we're talking about only the perceived negatives associated with the Dolphins in that game, and almost nothing about the strength of the opposition. The Dolphins were defined this year in these sorts of games, where playoff teams (Green Bay, Denver, Detroit, Baltimore, New England) seemingly turned on the juice at will and dominated the Dolphins at the points in those games that mattered. And when the Dolphins have a QB who's playing at only a minimally competitive level, with only two Pro Bowlers on the rest of the roster, in comparison to the firepower those other teams were bringing to the field, I hardly think that's explained predominantly by coaching.
Well, not exactly. Belichick was trying to be aggressive and keep the ball out of Mannings hands. Philbin went the conservative route and subsequently put the ball directly back into Rodgers hands.
Finnegan simply had to be between Adams and the sideline. He had like three guys closing from the middle of the field. He did freeze, for whatever reason, and gave Adams the sideline. It was pretty pathetic.
It seemed he froze because he was worried about getting out maneuvered and have the receiver run past him. He should have charged right towards him...terrible play by Finnegan .
The Dolphins were in the middle of the pack in Football Outsiders' team efficiency ratings, however, which adjust for the strength of opposing teams, in contrast to Burke's model, which does not. It's entirely possible that Burke's model is placing the Dolphins higher than the middle of the pack by virtue of assigning no weight to the strength or weakness of the opposition. The Dolphins could've "gotten healthy" against bad teams in Burke's model, which fits with the fact that playoff teams such as Green Bay, Denver, Detroit, Baltimore, and New England (the second game) beat them, while they dominated non-playoff teams such as Oakland, Chicago, and San Diego.
1. I agree with Tannephins. Lets give Rodgers and some of their offensive cogs a little big of credit shall we? I'm not even giving McCarthy credit. He had to rely on our offense to **** up for Rodgers to even have a chance despite winning the turnover battle, the time of possession and the passer rating differential. The Packers should never come close to losing a game under that scenario. Its almost inexplicable that we even managed to have the lead late in the game. 2. Finnegan made a competitive effort. The opportunity for a great play was there but he just didn't make. He kind of got deeked out by the offensive player and froze. Its no different than when Jones froze on Rodgers pump fake. It looks horrible on TV but you have to remember these are human beings. The most ridiculous critique to me though is this idea that he should have "known" he had help inside and simply protected the boundary. Again, he's in the heat of the moment, he doesn't have the luxury to dissect the play for minutes from every TV angle. And the fact that it was a fake spike complicates things. Anyway, can you imagine the fallout had he simply protected the sideline and the guy ran into the endzone untouched? Finnegan would be the laughing stock of the NFL. That clip would be used as an example of what NOT to do in that situation. 3. Here's what cost us the game: it wasn't the defensive timeouts, and it wasn't the decision to pass on 3rd and 8. It was our ineptitude on offense on that final drive. Our offense seemed completely oblivious to the situation. Seemingly no adjustments to pressure on every play. No sense of urgency. And nobody was stepping up. If anything, they were stepping down. Look at the clip of the 2nd and 8, Tannehill is looking at Miller, he doesn't like it then looks for a second option. First of all you don't have time to look for a second option there, if the first option is not there start ****ing moving!! Secondly, I would guess Miller either ran a poor route or perhaps he missed a sight adjustment or perhaps Tannehill was supposed to audible or maybe Tannehill made a bad read. I don't know, all I know is that play had no real chance to succeed as executed (though there was a window of opportunity to Miller). After witnessing that kind of effort on second down from the entire offense, and the effort on the previous passing downs on that drive, and in other games in similar circumstances, can you really blame Philbin for choosing the conservative option there? And to be clear, I'm not absolving coaching from losing the game. Its possible the offense wasn't good in that situation mostly because of coaching, either because they don't have enough latitude to make adjustments or because the players missed some things and made mistakes. Personally, I think Miller ****ed up and ran the wrong route, it wouldn't be the first time. Then, like Finnegan on the fake spike play, Tannehill made a competitive effort to not get sacked but the opportunity for a great, game winning play was there. He had room to move left or right. If he goes left he can still make the pass. If he goes right he can probably run for the first down. Here's the play: [video]https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video/B0ATlGFCQAApy86.mp4[/video]
But again, when a team has: a QB who's performing at the minimal level necessary for competitiveness in the NFL, only two Pro Bowl players (the average among this year's playoff teams is over 4, meaning that about half of them have even more than 4), a pattern of almost always losing to playoff teams, with those playoff teams' seemingly turning on the juice and dominating at will at pivotal points in games, and is ranked in the middle of the pack (15th overall) by a statistical framework (Football Outsiders) that evaluates its performance on the season, while adjusting for the strength of its opponents, ...why in the world are we talking about what happened on just one play, in just one game, as if anything of import hinged on it? The much, much larger body of evidence suggests that the team is merely average, and certainly a merely average team should be expected to lose the majority of its games against playoff teams such as Green Bay. To focus in on such a small aspect of the season is to miss the far bigger picture. The team needs a great deal more talent to be competitive. We can certainly evaluate its coaching during that process, but to attribute the team's performance in any large measure to coaching is very likely to be erroneous. We simply can't pin down the effect of coaching on an average team's play. There are too many other important variables pointing toward "average" to determine the effect of its coaching (whether good or bad) in any reliable way.
Because it is a symptom of the disease that is Joe Philbin. Symptom includes violent outbursts, queasiness, and vomiting.
And if the team would still perform below the level necessary for contention in the NFL, even with the best head coach of all time -- which for all we know is certainly possible -- why in the world do we care about what Joe Philbin is doing?
Uh, that clip of Finnegan should STILL be used as an example of what not to do. You are going to great lengths to absolve the defense of that. Let's be honest, if you want to complain about the offense in that game, you complain about the first half, where they were abysmal, not the second half where they pulled their heads out of their asses, and Tannehill played to like a rating of 120+. Yes, the defensive player SHOULD DEFINITELY know where he has help. It's pretty ridiculous to say otherwise.
I also think that a good coach would have our players in better positions, which generally results in players playing better and making more plays. Which is also what earns players spots in Pro Bowls. Saying that we only had two players in the Pro Bowl, and using that to excuse Philbin, is pretty disingenuous, because we might have players on the team who could be Pro Bowlers on another team. Just because they didn't make the Pro Bowl this year, doesn't mean that they aren't Pro Bowl quality, or couldn't be in a different situation.
For me games are won and lost in those moments by QUARTERBACKS. Nobody is under any illusion that the Panthers are going to blow out the Seahawks, what people are saying is hey, they have a good enough defense and running game to keep it close until the end, then who knows. When you have a team severly lacking in talent you are doing well to be in a lot of close games. Its interesting that under Philbin we've kodaked 6 times, and in two other games we've used defensive timeouts in an effort to still have time left to score ourselves if needed. Tannehill is 0 for 9 in "closeout" attempts. So that means at least nine times in 3 seasons we had the lead in close games, I would say we are near the top of the league in that stat. Its too time consuming to look at "closeouts" for every team but I did go through Wilson and Lucks opportunities and was surprised to see they only had 2 or 3 opportunities each. Its not even that we had a lot more close games than them, its that we had a one score lead whereas Wilson and Luck were down by one score more often. I would say that should be looked at as a positive for our coaching staff, you should prefer to be the team with the lead than the team thats behind. Anyway, the second and nine play bothers me more than anything. The team was in position to win the game despite a disastrous start by our offense. Somebody must have ****ed up as that play had no chance as executed, and it was the worst possible time to have a **** up. Was it Lazor, did he not give them enough latitude to make changes? Did Miller run a bad route? Did Tannehill make a bad read? I don't know but I do know that even despite the **** up there was still an opportunity for Tannehill to go above and beyond and do something. Tannehill is the guy we should be expecting to step up and win games. Not Finnegan. Not Wheeler. But Tannehill. For me if your QB can't step up and make a play in those situations then everything else is moot. Regardless of how much talent you have on the team those situations are unavoidable. If you can't perform in those situations they will cost you something; either playoffs, or homefield advantage, or a first round bye, or a trip to the Super Bowl or what have you, no matter what it is it'll cost you something, and probably something big. Your QB needs to be able to grit out wins in those close games. I would honestly prefer to have a ****ty QB that can perform in the clutch, like a Tim Tebow, than a QB that has great stats but has no grit. If we had just won every close game we had leads in near the end, not even including the games we were behind in, or games we didn't show up for, we'd have finished: 2012 9-7 2013 10-6 2014 10-6 Could the team use more talent? Sure. But imo that's not what's holding us back from getting over the hump.
We don't, and I've never said he isn't. I've simply said we can't make a reliable determination whether he is or isn't, when so many other major variables associated with the team are all pointing toward "average."
You don't know if the reason for all things pointing to average is directly related to Philbin being the coach.
